Criminal; Prosecutorial Misconduct; Whether Prosecutor's
Comment that Defendant had Contacted his Attorney Before Going to the Police
Constituted Misconduct; Whether Court Improperly Referred to Deceased as "the
Victim" Where Defendant Claimed he Acted in Self-Defense; Whether Jury was
Properly Instructed on Reasonable Doubt.On March 12, 1993, the defendant was visiting his
aunt at a Bridgeport housing project. While washing his car outside his aunt's
apartment building, the defendant was approached by four young men who robbed
him of his possessions and stole his car. As one of the men entered the car and
prepared to drive away, the defendant was handed a rifle by a woman who had
exited the apartment building. The defendant fired twenty-two shots as the car
drove off, killing the sixteen year old driver. After the shooting, the
defendant returned to his home, contacted his attorney and accompanied the
attorney to the police station where he gave a statement to the police. The
defendant was convicted of murder in connection with the shooting. On appeal,
he claims the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by suggesting that he had
improperly left the scene after the shooting and by telling the jury that he had
contacted his lawyer before giving a statement to the police. He contends that
he broke no law by leaving the scene of the shooting and that, by reason of the
weight and influence of her office, the prosecutor's suggestion to the contrary
was likely to have been credited by the jury. The defendant also claims that
the reference to the fact that he called his attorney before contacting the
police denied him his right to a fair trial by impermissibly suggesting that his
exercise of his right to counsel tended to show that the defendant believed he
was guilty. The defendant also claims error in the trial court's instructions
to the jury. First, he claims that, in charging the jury on self-defense, the
court improperly referred to the deceased as "the victim." He asserts that,
insofar as he claimed that his use of force was legally justified, the dead man
was not a victim of a crime, and the use of the word "victim" demonstrated the
court's bias and unfairly prejudiced his defense. Lastly, the defendant argues
that the court's instruction defining reasonable doubt impermissibly diluted the
state's burden of proof.